Systems and Methods Using Cryptography to Protect Secure Computing Environments

ABSTRACT

Secure computation environments are protected from bogus or rogue load modules, executables and other data elements through use of digital signatures, seals and certificates issued by a verifying authority. A verifying authority—which may be a trusted independent third party—tests the load modules or other executables to verify that their corresponding specifications are accurate and complete, and then digitally signs the load module or other executable based on tamper resistance work factor classification. Secure computation environments with different tamper resistance work factors use different verification digital signature authentication techniques (e.g., different signature algorithms and/or signature verification keys)—allowing one tamper resistance work factor environment to protect itself against load modules from another, different tamper resistance work factor environment. Several dissimilar digital signature algorithms may be used to reduce vulnerability from algorithm compromise, and subsets of multiple digital signatures may be used to reduce the scope of any specific compromise.

CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION

This application is a division of application Ser. No. 13/021,476, filedFeb. 4, 2011, which is a continuation of application Ser. No.11/841,518, filed Aug. 20, 2007 (now U.S. Pat. No. 7,904,707), which isa continuation of application Ser. No. 11/454,072, filed Jun. 14, 2006(now U.S. Pat. No. 7,925,898), which is a continuation of applicationSer. No. 09/925,072, filed Aug. 6, 2001 (now U.S. Pat. No. 7,120,802),which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 09/678,830, filed Oct.4, 2000 (now U.S. Pat. No. 6,292,569), which is a continuation ofapplication Ser. No. 08/689,754, filed Aug. 12, 1996 (now U.S. Pat. No.6,157,721), all of which are incorporated herein by reference.

This application is also related to application Ser. No. 08/388,107,filed 13 Feb. 1995 (abandoned), which is also incorporated herein byreference.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION(S)

This invention relates to computer security, and more particularly tosecure and/or protected computer execution environments. Still morespecifically, the present invention relates to computer securitytechniques based at least in part on cryptography, that protect acomputer processing environment against potentially harmful computerexecutables, programs and/or data; and to techniques for certifying loadmodules such as executable computer programs or fragments thereof asbeing authorized for use by a protected or secure processingenvironment.

BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION(S)

Computers have become increasingly central to business, finance andother important aspects of our lives. It is now more important than everto protect computers from “bad” or harmful computer programs.Unfortunately, since many of our most critical business, financial andgovernmental tasks now rely heavily on computers, dishonest people havea great incentive to use increasingly sophisticated and ingeniouscomputer attacks.

Imagine, for example, if a dishonest customer of a major bank couldreprogram the bank's computer so it adds to instead of subtracts fromthe customer's account—or diverts a penny to the customer's account fromanyone else's bank deposit in excess of $10,000. If successful, suchattacks would not only allow dishonest people to steal, but could alsoundermine society's confidence in the integrity and reliability of thebanking system.

Terrorists can also try to attack us through our computers. We cannotafford to have harmful computer programs destroy the computers drivingthe greater San Francisco metropolitan air traffic controller network,the New York Stock Exchange, the life support systems of a majorhospital, or the Northern Virginia metropolitan area fire and paramedicemergency dispatch service.

There are many different kinds of “bad” computer programs, which ingeneral are termed “Trojan horses”—programs that cause a computer to actin a manner not intended by its operator, named after the famous woodenhorse of Troy that delivered an attacking army disguised as anattractive gift. One of the most notorious kinds is so-called “computerviruses”—“diseases” that a computer can “catch” from another computer. Acomputer virus is a computer program that instructs the computer to doharmful or spurious things instead of useful things—and can alsoreplicate itself to spread from one computer to another. Since thecomputer does whatever its instructions tell it to do, it will carry outthe bad intent of a malicious human programmer who wrote the computervirus program—unless the computer is protected from the computer virusprogram. Special “anti-virus” protection software exists, but itunfortunately is only partially effective—for example, because newviruses can escape detection until they become widely known andrecognized, and because sophisticated viruses can escape detection bymasquerading as tasks the computer is supposed to be performing.

Computer security risks of all sorts—including the risks from computerviruses—have increased dramatically as computers have becomeincreasingly connected to one another over the Internet and by othermeans. Increased computer connectivity provides increased capabilities,but also creates a host of computer security problems that haven't beenfully solved. For example, electronic networks are an obvious path forspreading computer viruses. In October 1988, a university student usedthe Internet (a network of computer networks connected to millions ofcomputers worldwide) to infect thousands of university and businesscomputers with a self-replicating “worm” virus that took over theinfected computers and caused them to execute the computer virus insteadof performing the tasks they were supposed to perform. This computervirus outbreak (which resulted in a criminal prosecution) causedwidespread panic throughout the electronic community.

Computer viruses are by no means the only computer security risk madeeven more significant by increased computer connectivity. For example, asignificant percentage of the online electronic community has recentlybecome committed to a new “portable” computer language called Java™developed by Sun Microsystems of Mountain View, Calif. Java was designedto allow computers to interactively and dynamically download computerprogram code fragments (called “applets”) over an electronic networksuch as the internet, and execute the downloaded code fragments locally.Java's “download and execute” capability is valuable because it allowscertain tasks to be performed locally on local equipment using localresources. For example, a user's computer could run a particularlycomputationally or data-intensive routine—relieving the provider'scomputer from having to run the task and/or eliminating the need totransmit large amounts of data over the communications path.

While Java's “download and execute” capability has great potential, itraises significant computer security concerns. For example, Java appletscould be written to damage hardware, software or information on therecipient computer, make the computer unstable by depleting itsresources, and/or access confidential information on the computer andsend it to someone else without first getting the computer owner'spermission. People have expended lots of time and effort trying to solveJava's security problems. To alleviate some of these concerns, SunMicrosystems has developed a Java interpreter providing certain built-insecurity features such as:

-   -   a Java verifier that will not let an applet execute until the        verifier verifies the applet doesn't violate certain rules,    -   a Java class loader that treats applets originating remotely        differently from those originating locally,    -   a Java security manager that controls access to resources such        as files and network access, and    -   promised to come soon—the use of digital signatures for        authenticating applets.

Numerous security flaws have been found despite these techniques.Moreover, a philosophy underlying this overall security design is that auser will have no incentive to compromise the security of her ownlocally installed Java interpreter—and that any such compromise isinconsequential from a system security standpoint because only theuser's own computer (and its contents) are at risk. Thisphilosophy—which is typical of many security system designs—is seriouslyflawed in many useful electronic commerce contexts for reasons describedbelow in connection with the above-referenced Ginter et al. patentspecification.

The Ginter et al. specification describes a “virtual distributionenvironment” comprehensively providing overall systems and wide arraysof methods, techniques, structures and arrangements that enable secure,efficient electronic commerce and rights management, including on theInternet or other “Information Super Highway.”

The Ginter et al. patent disclosure describes, among other things,techniques for providing a secure, tamper resistant execution spaceswithin a “protected processing environment” for computer programs anddata. The protected processing environment described in Ginter et al.may be hardware-based, software-based, or a hybrid. It can executecomputer code the Ginter et al. disclosure refers to as “load modules.”See, for example, Ginter et al. FIG. 23 and corresponding text. Theseload modules—which can be transmitted from remote locations withinsecure cryptographic wrappers or “containers”—are used to perform thebasic operations of the “virtual distribution environment.” Load modulesmay contain algorithms, data, cryptographic keys, shared secrets, and/orother information that permits a load module to interact with othersystem components (e.g., other load modules and/or computer programsoperating in the same or different protected processing environment).For a load module to operate and interact as intended, it must executewithout unauthorized modification and its contents may need to beprotected from disclosure.

Unlike many other computer security scenarios, there may be asignificant incentive for an owner of a Ginter et al. type protectedprocessing environment to attack his or her own protected processingenvironment. For example:

-   -   the owner may wish to “turn off” payment mechanisms necessary to        ensure that people delivering content and other value receive        adequate compensation; or    -   the owner may wish to defeat other electronic controls        preventing him or her from performing certain tasks (for        example, copying content without authorization); or    -   the owner may wish to access someone else's confidential        information embodied within electronic controls present in the        owner's protected processing environment; or    -   the owner may wish to change the identity of a payment recipient        indicated within controls such that they receive payments        themselves, or to interfere with commerce; or    -   the owner may wish to defeat the mechanism(s) that disable some        or all functions when budget has been exhausted, or audit trails        have not been delivered.

Security experts can often be heard to say that to competently do theirjob, they must “think like an attacker.” For example, a successful homesecurity system installer must try to put herself in the place of aburglar trying to break in. Only by anticipating how a burglar might tryto break into a house can the installer successfully defend the houseagainst burglary. Similarly, computer security experts must try toanticipate the sorts of attacks that might be brought against apresumably secure computer system.

From this “think like an attacker” viewpoint, introducing a bogus loadmodule is one of the strongest possible forms of attack (by a protectedprocessing environment user or anyone else) on the virtual distributionenvironment disclosed in the Ginter et al. patent specification. Becauseload modules have access to internal protected data structures withinprotected processing environments and also (at least to an extent)control the results brought about by those protected processingenvironments, bogus load modules can (putting aside for the momentadditional possible local protections such as addressing and/or ringprotection and also putting aside system level fraud and other securityrelated checks) perform almost any action possible in the virtualdistribution environment without being subject to intended electroniccontrols. Especially likely attacks may range from straightforwardchanges to protected data (for example, adding budget, billing fornothing instead of the desired amount, etc.) to wholesale compromise(for example, using a load module to expose a protected processingenvironment's cryptographic keys). For at least these reasons, themethods for validating the origin and soundness of a load module arecritically important.

The Ginter et al. patent specification discloses important techniquesfor securing protected processing environments against inauthentic loadmodules introduced by the computer owner, user, or any other party,including for example:

-   -   Encrypting and authenticating load modules whenever they are        shared between protected processing environments via a        communications path outside of a tamper-resistant barrier and/or        passed between different virtual distribution environment        participants;    -   Using digital signatures to determine if load module executable        content is intact and was created by a trusted source (i.e., one        with a correct certificate for creating load modules);    -   Strictly controlling initiation of load module execution by use        of encryption keys, digital signatures and/or tags;    -   Carefully controlling the process of creating, replacing,        updating or deleting load modules; and    -   Maintaining shared secrets (e.g., cryptographic keys) within a        tamper resistant enclosure that the owner of the electronic        appliance cannot easily tamper with.

Although the Ginter et al. patent specification comprehensively solves ahost of load module (and other) security related problems, any computersystem—no matter how secure—can be “cracked” if enough time, money andeffort is devoted to the project. Therefore, even a very secure systemsuch as that disclosed in Ginter et al. can be improved to provide evengreater security and protection against attack.

The present invention provides improved techniques for protecting securecomputation and/or execution spaces (as one important but non-limitingexample, the protected processing environments as disclosed in Ginter etal) from unauthorized (and potentially harmful) load modules or other“executables” or associated data. In one particular preferredembodiment, these techniques build upon, enhance and/or extend incertain respects, the load module security techniques, arrangements andsystems provided in the Ginter et al. specification.

In accordance with one aspect provided by the present invention, one ormore trusted verifying authorities validate load modules or otherexecutables by analyzing and/or testing them. A verifying authoritydigitally “signs” and “certifies” those load modules or otherexecutables it has verified (using a public key based digital signatureand/or certificate based thereon, for example).

Protected execution spaces such as protected processing environments canbe programmed or otherwise conditioned to accept only those load modulesor other executables bearing a digital signature/certificate of anaccredited (or particular) verifying authority. Tamper resistantbarriers may be used to protect this programming or other conditioning.The assurance levels described below are a measure or assessment of theeffectiveness with which this programming or other conditioning isprotected.

A web of trust may stand behind a verifying authority. For example, averifying authority may be an independent organization that can betrusted by all electronic value chain participants not to collaboratewith any particular participant to the disadvantage of otherparticipants. A given load module or other executable may beindependently certified by any number of authorized verifying authorityparticipants. If a load module or other executable is signed, forexample, by five different verifying authority participants, a user willhave (potentially) a higher likelihood of finding one that they trust.General commercial users may insist on several different certifiers, andgovernment users, large corporations, and international trading partnersmay each have their own unique “web of trust” requirements. This “web oftrust” prevents value chain participants from conspiring to defraudother value chain participants.

In accordance with another aspect provided by this invention, each loadmodule or other executable has specifications associated with itdescribing the executable, its operations, content, and functions. Suchspecifications could be represented by any combination ofspecifications, formal mathematical descriptions that can be verified inan automated or other well-defined manner, or any other forms ofdescription that can be processed, verified, and/or tested in anautomated or other well-defined manner. The load module or otherexecutable is preferably constructed using a programming language (e.g.,languages such as Java and Python) and/or design/implementationmethodology (e.g., Gypsy, FDM) that can facilitate automated analysis,validation, verification, inspection, and/or testing.

A verifying authority analyzes, validates, verifies, inspects, and/ortests the load module or other executable, and compares its results withthe specifications associated with the load module or other executable.A verifying authority may digitally sign or certify only those loadmodules or other executables having proper specifications—and mayinclude the specifications as part of the material being signed orcertified.

A verifying authority may instead, or in addition, selectively be giventhe responsibility for analyzing the load module and generating aspecification for it. Such a specification could be reviewed by the loadmodule's originator and/or any potential users of the load module.

A verifying authority may selectively be given the authority to generatean additional specification for the load module, for example bytranslating a formal mathematical specification to other kinds ofspecifications. This authority could be granted, for example, by a loadmodule originator wishing to have a more accessible, but verified(certified), description of the load module for purposes of informingother potential users of the load module.

Additionally, a verifying authority may selectively be empowered tomodify the specifications to make it accurate—but may refuse to sign orcertify load modules or other executables that are harmful or dangerousirrespective of the accuracy of their associated specifications. Thespecifications may in some instances be viewable by ultimate users orother value chain participants—providing a high degree of assurance thatload modules or other executables are not subverting the system and/orthe legitimate interest of any participant in an electronic value chainthe system supports.

In accordance with another aspect provided by the present invention, anexecution environment protects itself by deciding—based on digitalsignatures, for example—which load modules or other executables it iswilling to execute. A digital signature allows the execution environmentto test both the authenticity and the integrity of the load module orother executables, as well permitting a user of such executables todetermine their correctness with respect to their associatedspecifications or other description of their behavior, if suchdescriptions are included in the verification process.

A hierarchy of assurance levels may be provided for different protectedprocessing environment security levels. Load modules or otherexecutables can be provided with digital signatures associated withparticular assurance levels. Appliances assigned to particular assurancelevels can protect themselves from executing load modules or otherexecutables associated with different assurance levels. Differentdigital signatures and/or certificates may be used to distinguishbetween load modules or other executables intended for differentassurance levels. This strict assurance level hierarchy provides aframework to help ensure that a more trusted environment can protectitself from load modules or other executables exposed to environmentswith different work factors (e.g., less trusted or tamper resistantenvironments). This can be used to provide a high degree of securitycompartmentalization that helps protect the remainder of the systemshould parts of the system become compromised.

For example, protected processing environments or other secure executionspaces that are more impervious to tampering (such as those providing ahigher degree of physical security) may use an assurance level thatisolates it from protected processing environments or other secureexecution spaces that are relatively more susceptible to tampering (suchas those constructed solely by software executing on a general purposedigital computer in a non-secure location).

A verifying authority may digitally sign load modules or otherexecutables with a digital signature that indicates or implies assurancelevel. A verifying authority can use digital signature techniques todistinguish between assurance levels. As one example, each differentdigital signature may be encrypted using a different verification keyand/or fundamentally different encryption, one-way hash and/or othertechniques. A protected processing environment or other secure executionspace protects itself by executing only those load modules or otherexecutables that have been digitally signed for its correspondingassurance level.

The present invention may use a verifying authority and the digitalsignatures it provides to compartmentalize the different electronicappliances depending on their level of security (e.g., work factor orrelative tamper resistance). In particular, a verifying authority andthe digital signatures it provides isolate appliances with significantlydifferent work factors—preventing the security of high work factorappliances from collapsing into the security of low work factorappliances due to free exchange of load modules or other executables.

Encryption can be used in combination with the assurance level schemediscussed above to ensure that load modules or other executables can beexecuted only in specific environments or types of environments. Thesecure way to ensure that a load module or other executable can'texecute in a particular environment is to ensure that the environmentdoesn't have the key(s) necessary to decrypt it. Encryption can rely onmultiple public keys and/or algorithms to transport basic key(s). Suchencryption protects the load module or other executable from disclosureto environments (or assurance levels of environments) other than the oneit is intended to execute in.

In accordance with another aspect provided by this invention, averifying authority can digitally sign a load module or other executablewith several different digital signatures and/or signature schemes. Aprotected processing environment or other secure execution space mayrequire a load module or other executable to present multiple digitalsignatures before accepting it. An attacker would have to “break” each(all) of the several digital signatures and/or signature schemes tocreate an unauthorized load module or other executable that would beaccepted by the protected processing environment or other secureexecution space. Different protected processing environments (secureexecution spaces) might examine different subsets of the multipledigital signatures—so that compromising one protected processingenvironment (secure execution space) will not compromise all of them. Asan optimization, a protected processing environment or other secureexecution space might verify only one of the several digital signatures(for example, chosen at random each time an executable is used)—therebyspeeding up the digital signature verification while still maintaining ahigh degree of security.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

These and other features and advantages provided in accordance with thisinvention may be better and more completely understood by referring tothe following detailed description of example preferred embodiments inconjunction with the drawings, of which:

FIG. 1 illustrates how defective or bogus load modules can wreak havocin the electronic community;

FIG. 2 shows an example verification authority that protects theelectronic community from unauthorized load modules;

FIG. 3 shows how a protected processing environment can distinguishbetween load modules that have been approved by a verifying authorityand those that have not been approved;

FIG. 4 shows an example process a verifying authority may perform toauthenticate load modules;

FIG. 5 shows how a verifying authority can create a certifying digitalsignature;

FIG. 6 shows how a protected processing environment can securelyauthenticate a verifying authority's digital signature to guarantee theintegrity of the corresponding load module;

FIG. 7 shows how several different digital signatures can be applied tothe same load module;

FIG. 8 shows how a load module can be distributed with multiple digitalsignatures;

FIG. 8A shows how key management can be used to compartmentalizeprotected processing environments;

FIG. 9 shows how a load module can be segmented and each segmentprotected with a different digital signature;

FIGS. 10A-10C show how different assurance level electronic appliancescan be provided with different cryptographic keys for authenticatingverifying authority digital signatures;

FIGS. 11A-11C show how a verifying authority can use different digitalsignatures to designate the same or different load modules as beingappropriate for execution by different assurance level electronicappliances;

FIGS. 12, 13 and 13A show how assurance level digital signatures can beused to isolate electronic appliances or appliance types based on workfactor and/or tamper resistance to reduce overall security risks; and

FIG. 14 shows example overall steps that may be performed within anelectronic system (such as, for example, a virtual distributionenvironment) to test, certify, distribute and use executables.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF EXAMPLE EMBODIMENTS

FIG. 1 shows how defective, bogus and/or unauthorized computerinformation can wreak havoc within an electronic system 50. In thisexample, provider 52 is authorized to produce and distribute “loadmodules” 54 for use by different users or consumers 56. FIG. 1 shows“load module” 54 as a complicated looking machine part for purposes ofillustration only; the load module preferably comprises one or morecomputer instructions and/or data elements used to assist, allow,prohibit, direct, control or facilitate at least one task performed atleast in part by an electronic appliance such as a computer. Forexample, load module 54 may comprise all or part of an executablecomputer program and/or associated data (“executable”), and mayconstitute a sequence of instructions or steps that bring about acertain result within a computer or other computation element.

FIG. 1 shows a number of electronic appliances 61 such as, for example,a set top box or home media player 58, a personal computer 60, and amulti-media player 62. Each of appliances 58, 60, 62 may include asecure execution space. One particular example of a secure executionspace is a “protected processing environment” 108 of the type shown inGinter et al. (see FIGS. 6-12) and described in associated text.Protected processing environments 108 provide a secure executionenvironment in which appliances 58, 60, 62 may securely execute loadmodules 54 to perform useful tasks. For example:

-   -   Provider 52 might produce a load module 54 a for use by the        protected processing environment 108A within set top box or home        media player 58. Load module 54 a could, for example, enable the        set top box/home media player 58 to play a movie, concert or        other interesting program, charge users 56 a a “pay per view”        fee, and ensure that the fee is paid to the appropriate rights        holder (for example, the film studio, concert promoter or other        organization that produced the program material).    -   Provider 52 might produce another load module 54 b for delivery        to personal computer 60's protected processing environment 108B.        The load module 54 b might enable personal computer 60 to        perform a financial transaction, such as, for example, home        banking, a stock trade or an income tax payment or reporting.    -   Provider 52 could produce a load module 54 c for delivery to        multi-media player 62's protected processing environment 108 c.        This load module 54 c might allow user 56 c to view a particular        multi-media presentation while preventing the user from making a        copy of the presentation—or it could control a portion of a        transaction (e.g. a meter that records usage, and is        incorporated into a larger transaction involving other load        modules associated with interacting with a multi-media piece).        (As described in the Ginter et al. specification, load modules        associated with the financial portion of a transaction, for        example, may often be self contained and independent).

FIG. 1 also shows an unauthorized and/or disreputable load moduleprovider 64. Unauthorized provider 64 knows how to make load modulesthat look a lot like the load modules produced by authorized load moduleprovider 52—but are defective or even destructive. Unless precautionsare taken, the unauthorized load module 54 d made by unauthorizedproducer 64 will be able to run on protected processing environments 108within appliances 58, 60 and 62, and may cause serious harm to users 56and/or to the integrity of system 50. For example:

-   -   unauthorized provider 64 could produce a load module 54 d that        is quite similar to authorized load module 54 a intended to be        used by set top box or home media player 58. The unauthorized        load module 54 d might allow protected processing environment        108A within set top box/home media player 58 to present the very        same program material—but divert some or all of the user's        payment to unauthorized producer 64—thereby defrauding the        rights holders in the program material the users watch.    -   Unauthorized provider 64 might produce an unauthorized version        of load module 54 b that could, if run by personal computer 60's        protected processing environment 108 b, disclose the user 64 b's        bank and credit card account numbers to unauthorized provider 64        and/or divert electronic or other funds to the unauthorized        provider.    -   Unauthorized provider 64 could produce an unauthorized version        of load module 54 c that could damage the protected processing        environment 108 c within multi media player 62—erasing data it        needs for its operation and making it unusable. Alternatively,        an unauthorized version of load module 54 c could defeat the        copy protection provided by multi media player 62's protected        processing environment, causing the makers of multi media        programs to lose substantial revenues through unauthorized        copying—or defeat or alter the part of the transaction provided        by the load module (e.g., billing, metering, maintaining an        audit trail, etc.)

FIG. 2 shows how a verifying authority 100 can prevent the problemsshown in FIG. 1. In this example, authorized provider 52 submits loadmodules 54 to verifying authority 100. Verifying authority 100 carefullyanalyzes the load modules 54 (see 102), testing them to make sure theydo what they are supposed to do and do not compromise or harm system 50.If a load module 54 passes the tests verifying authority 100 subjects itto, a verifying authority may affix a digital “seal of approval” (see104) to the load module.

Protected processing environments 108 can use this digital “seal ofapproval” 106 (which may comprise one or more “digital signatures”) todistinguish between authorized and unauthorized load modules 54. FIG. 3illustrates how an electronic protected processing environment 108 canuse and rely on a verifying authority's digital seal of approval 106. Inthis example, the protected processing environment 108 can distinguishbetween authorized and unauthorized load modules 54 by examining theload module to see whether it bears the seal of verifying authority 100.Protected processing environment 108 will execute the load module 54 awith its processor 110 only if the load module bears a verifyingauthority's seal 106. Protected processing environment 108 discards anddoes not use any load module 54 that does not bear this seal 106. Inthis way, protected processing environment 108 securely protects itselfagainst unauthorized load modules 54 such as, for example, the defectiveload module 54 d made by disreputable load module provider 64.

FIG. 4 shows the analysis and digital signing steps 102, 104 performedby verifying authority 100 in this example. Provider 54 may provide,with each load module 54, associated specifications 110 identifying theload module and describing the functions the load module performs. Inthis example, these specifications 110 are illustrated as amanufacturing tag, but preferably comprises a data file associated withand/or attached to the load module 54.

Verifying authority 100 uses an analyzing tool(s) 112 to analyze andtest load module 54 and determine whether it performs as specified byits associated specifications 110—that is, whether the specificationsare both accurate and complete. FIG. 4 illustrates an analysis tool 112as a magnifying glass; verifying authority 100 may not rely on visualinspection only, but instead preferably uses one or more computer-basedsoftware testing techniques and/or tools to verify that the load moduleperforms as expected, matches specifications 110, is not a “virus,” andincludes no significant detectable “bugs” or other harmfulfunctionality. See for example Pressman, Software Engineering: APractitioner's Approach (3d Ed., McGraw-Hill 1992) at chapters 18 and 19(“Software Testing Techniques”) (pages 595-661) and the various booksand papers referenced there. Although it has been said that “testing canshow only the presence of bugs, not their absence,” such testing (inaddition to ensuring that the load module 54 satisfies itsspecifications 110) can provide added degrees of assurance that the loadmodule isn't harmful and will work as it is supposed to.

Verifying authority 100 is preferably a trusted, independent third partysuch as an impartial, well respected independent testing laboratory.Therefore, all participants in an electronic transaction involving loadmodule 54 can trust a verifying authority 100 as performing its testingand analysis functions competently and completely objectively andimpartially. As described above, there may be several differentverifying authorities 100 that together provide a “web of trust”.Several different verifying authorities may each verify and digitallysign the same load module—increasing the likelihood that a particularvalue chain participant will trust one of them and decreasing thelikelihood of collusion or fraud. Electronic value chain participantsmay rely upon different verifying authorities 100 to certify differenttypes of load modules. For example, one verifying authority 100 trustedby and known to financial participants might verify load modulesrelating to financial aspects of a transaction (e.g., billing), whereasanother verifying authority 100′ trusted by and known to participantsinvolved in using the “information exhaust” provided by an electronictransaction might be used to verify load modules relating to usagemetering aspects of the same transaction.

Once verifying authority 100 is satisfied with load module 54, itaffixes its digital “seal of approval” 106 to the load module. FIG. 4illustrates the digital sealing process as being performed by a stamp114—but in the preferred embodiment the digital sealing process isactually performed by creating a “digital signature” using a well knownprocess. See Schneier, Applied Cryptography (2d Ed. John Wiley & Sons1996) at Chapter 20 (pages 483-502). This digital signature, certificateor seal creation process is illustrated in FIG. 5.

In the FIG. 5 process, load module 54 (along with specifications 110 ifdesired) is processed to yield a “message digest” 116 using aconventional one-way hash function selected to provide an appropriateresistance to algorithmic attack. See, for example, the transformationprocesses discussed in the Schneier text at Chapter 18, pages 429-455. Aone-way hash function 115 provides a “fingerprint” (message digest 116)that is unique to load module 54. The one-way hash function transformsthe contents of load module 54 into message digest 116 based on amathematical function. This one-way hash mathematical function has thecharacteristic that it is easy to calculate message digest 116 from loadmodule 54, but it is hard (computationally infeasible) to calculate loadmodule 54 starting from message digest 116 and it is also hard(computationally infeasible) to find another load module 54′ that willtransform to the same message digest 116. There are many potentialcandidate functions (e.g., MD5, SHA), families of functions (e.g., MD5,or SHA with different internal constants), and keyed functions (e.g.,message authentication codes based on block ciphers such as DES) thatmay be employed as one-way hash functions in this scheme. Differentfunctions may have different cryptographic strengths and weaknesses sothat techniques which may be developed to defeat one of them are notnecessarily applicable to others.

Message digest 116 may then be encrypted using asymmetric keycryptography. FIG. 5 illustrates this encryption operation using themetaphor of a strong box 118. The message digest 116 is placed intostrong box 118, and the strongbox is locked with a lock 120 having twokey slots opened by different (“asymmetrical”) keys. A first key 122(sometimes called the “private” key) is used to lock the lock. A second(different) key 124 (sometimes called the “public” key) must be used toopen the lock once the lock has been locked with the first key. Theencryption algorithm and key length is selected so that it iscomputationally infeasible to calculate first key 122 given access tosecond key 124, the public key encryption algorithm, the clear textmessage digest 116, and the encrypted digital signature 106. There aremany potential candidate algorithms for this type of asymmetric keycryptography (e.g., RSA, DSA, EI Gamal, Elliptic Curve Encryption).Different algorithms may have different cryptographic strengths andweaknesses so that techniques which may be developed to defeat one ofthem are not necessarily applicable to others.

In this case the first key is owned by verifying authority 100 and iskept highly secure (for example, using standard physical and proceduralmeasures typically employed to keep an important private key secretwhile preventing it from being lost). Once message digest 116 is lockedinto strong box 118 using the first key 122 the strong box can be openedonly by using the corresponding second key 124. Note that other items(e.g., further identification information, a time/date stamp, etc.) canalso be placed within strong box 106.

FIG. 6 shows how a protected processing environment 108 “authenticates”the digital signature 106 created by the FIG. 5 process. Second key 124and the one-way hash algorithm are first securely provided to theprotected processing environment. For example, a secure key exchangeprotocol can be used as described in connection with FIG. 64 of theGinter et al. patent specification. Public key cryptography allowssecond key 124 to be made public without compromising first key 122.However, in this example, protected processing environment 108preferably keeps the second key 124 (and, if desired, also the one-wayhash algorithm and/or its associated key) secret to further increasesecurity.

Maintaining “public” verification key 124 as a secret within tamperresistant protected processing environment 108 greatly complicates thejob of generating bogus digital signatures 106. If the attacker does notpossess second key 124, the difficulty of an algorithmic attack orcryptanalytic attack on the verification digital signature algorithm issignificantly increased, and the attacker might be reduced to exhaustivesearch (brute force) type attacks which would be even less practicalbecause the search trials would require attempting to present a bogusload module 54 to protected processing environment 108—which, after afew such attempts is likely to refuse all further attempts. Keepingsecond key 124 secret also requires a multi-disciplinary attack: anattacker must both (A) extract the secret from protected processingenvironment 108, and (B) attack the algorithm. It may be substantiallyless likely that a single attacker may have expertise in each of thesetwo specialized disciplines.

In addition, maintaining the “public” key within a tamper-resistantenvironment forecloses the significant threat that the owner ofprotected processing environment 108 may himself attack the environment.For example, if the owner could replace the appropriate “public” key 124with his own substitute public key, the owner could force the protectedprocessing environment 108 to execute load modules 54 of his owndesign—thereby compromising the interests of others in enforcing theirown controls within the owner's protected processing environment. Forexample, the owner could turn off the control that required him to payfor watching or prohibited him from copying content. Since protectedprocessing environment 108 can support a “virtual business presence” byparties other than the owner, it is important for the protectedprocessing environment to be protected against attacks from the owner.

The load module 54 and its associated digital signature 106 is thendelivered to the protected processing environment 108. (These items canbe provided together at the same time, independently, or at differenttimes.) Protected processing environment 115 applies the same one wayhash transformation on load module 54 that a verifying authority 100applied. Since protected processing environment 108 starts with the sameload module 54 and uses the same one-way hash function 115, it shouldgenerate the same message digest 116′.

Protected processing environment 108 then decrypts digital signature 106using the second key 124—i.e., it opens strongbox 118 to retrieve themessage digest 116 a verifying authority 100 placed in there. Protectedprocessing environment 108 compares the version of message digest 116 itobtains from the digital signature 106 with the version of messagedigest 116′ it calculates itself from load module 54 using the one wayhash transformation 115. The message digests 116, 116′ should beidentical. If they do not match, digital signature 106 is not authenticor load module 54 has been changed—and protected processing environment108 rejects load module 54.

FIG. 7 shows that multiple digital signatures 106(1), 106(2), . . .106(N) can be created for the same load module 54. For example:

-   -   one digital signature 106(1) can be created by encrypting        message digest 116 with a “private” key 122(1),    -   another (different) digital signature 106(2) can be created by        encrypting the message digest 116 with a different “private” key        122(2), possibly employing a different signature algorithm, and    -   a still different digital signature 106(N) can be generated by        encrypting the message digest using a still different “private”        key 122(N), possibly employing a different signature algorithm.

The public key 124(1) corresponding to private key 122(1) acts only todecrypt (authenticate) digital signature 106(1). Similarly, digitalsignature 106′ can only be decrypted (authenticated) using public key124(2) corresponding to the private 122(2). Public key 124(1) will not“unlock” digital signature 106(2) and public key 124(2) will not“unlock” digital signature 106(1).

Different digital signatures 106(1), 106(N) can also be made by usingdifferent one way hash functions 115 and/or different encryptionalgorithms. As shown in FIG. 8, a load module 54 may have multipledifferent types of digital signatures 106 associated with it. Requiringa load module 54 to present, to a protected processing environment 108,multiple digital signatures 106 generated using fundamentally differenttechniques decreases the risk that an attacker can successfullymanufacture a bogus load module 54.

For example, as shown in FIG. 8, the same load module 54 might bedigitally signed using three different private keys 122, cryptographicalgorithms, and/or hash algorithms. If a given load module 54 hasmultiple distinct digital signatures 106 each computed using afundamentally different technique, the risk of compromise issubstantially lowered. A single algorithmic advance is unlikely toresult in simultaneous success against both (or multiple) cryptographicalgorithms. The two digital signature algorithms in widespread use today(RSA and DSA) are based on distinct mathematical problems (factoring inthe case of RSA, discrete logs for DSA). The most currently popularone-way hash functions (MD4/MD5 and SHA) have similar internalstructures, possibly increasing the likelihood that a successful attackagainst one would lead to a success against another. However, hashfunctions can be derived from any number of different block ciphers(e.g., SEAL, IDEA, triple-DES) with different internal structures; oneof these might be a good candidate to complement MD5 or SHA.

Multiple signatures as shown in FIG. 8 impose a cost of additionalstorage for the signatures 106 in each protected load module 54,additional code in the protected processing environment 108 to implementadditional algorithms, and additional time to verify the digitalsignatures (as well as to generate them at verification time). As anoptimization to the use of multiple keys or algorithms, an appliance 61might verify only a subset of several signatures associated with a loadmodule 54 (chosen at random) each time the load module is used. Thiswould speed up signature verification while maintaining a highprobability of detection. For example, suppose there are one hundred“private” verification keys, and each load module 54 carries one hundreddigital signatures. Suppose each protected processing environment 108,on the other hand, knows only a few (e.g., ten) of these corresponding“public” verification keys randomly selected from the set. A successfulattack on that particular protected processing environment 108 wouldpermit it to be compromised and would also compromise any otherprotected processing environment possessing and using precisely thatsame set of ten keys. However, it would not compromise most otherprotected processing environments—since they would employ a differentsubset of the keys used by verifying authority 100.

FIG. 8A shows a simplified example of different processing environments108(1), . . . , 108(N) possessing different subsets of “public” keysused for digital signature authentication—thereby compartmentalizing theprotected processing environments based on key management andavailability. The FIG. 8A illustration shows each protected processingenvironment 108 having only one “public” key 124 that corresponds to oneof the digital signatures 106 used to “sign” load module 54. Asexplained above, any number of digital signatures 106 may be used tosign the load module 54—and different protected processing environment108 may possess any subset of corresponding “public” keys.

FIG. 9 shows that a load module 54 may comprise multiple segments 55(1),55(2), 55(3) signed using different digital signatures 106. For example:

-   -   a first load module segment 55(1) might be signed using a        digital signature 106(1);    -   a second load module segment 55(2) might be digitally signed        using a second digital signature 106(2); and    -   a third load module segment 55(3) might be signed using a third        digital signature 106(3).

These three signatures 55(1), 55(2), 55(3) could all be affixed by thesame verifying authority 100, or they could be affixed by threedifferent verifying authorities (providing a “web of trust”). (Inanother model, a load module is verified in its entirety by multipleparties—if a user trusts any of them, she can trust the load module.) Aprotected processing environment 108 would need to have all threecorresponding “public” keys 124(1), 124(2), 124(3) to authenticate theentire load module 54—or the different load module segments could beused by different protected processing environments possessing thecorresponding different keys 124(1), 124(2), 124(3). Differentsignatures 55(1), 55(2), 55(3) could be calculated using differentsignature and/or one-way hash algorithms to increase the difficulty ofdefeating them by cryptanalytic attack.

Assurance Levels

Verifying authority 100 can use different digital signing techniques toprovide different “assurance levels” for different kinds of electronicappliances 61 having different “work factors” or levels of tamperresistance. FIGS. 10A-10C show an example assurance level hierarchyproviding three different assurance levels for different electronicappliance types:

-   -   Assurance level I might be used for an electronic appliance(s)        61 whose protected processing environment 108 is based on        software techniques that may be somewhat resistant to tampering.        An example of an assurance level I electronic appliance 61A        might be a general purpose personal computer that executes        software to create protected processing environment 108.    -   An assurance level II electronic appliance 61B may provide a        protected processing environment 108 based on a hybrid of        software security techniques and hardware-based security        techniques. An example of an assurance level II electronic        appliance 61 B might be a general purpose personal computer        equipped with a hardware integrated circuit secure processing        unit (“SPU”) that performs some secure processing outside of the        SPU (see Ginter et al. patent disclosure FIG. 10 and associated        text). Such a hybrid arrangement might be relatively more        resistant to tampering than a software-only implementation.    -   The assurance level III appliance 61C shown is a general purpose        personal computer equipped with a hardware-based secure        processing unit 132 providing and completely containing        protected processing environment 108 (see Ginter et al. FIGS. 6        and 9 for example). A silicon-based special purpose integrated        circuit security chip is relatively more tamper-resistant than        implementations relying on software techniques for some or all        of their tamper-resistance.

In this example, verifying authority 100 digitally signs load modules 54using different digital signature techniques (for example, different“private” keys 122) based on assurance level. The digital signatures 106applied by verifying authority 100 thus securely encode the same (ordifferent) load module 54 for use by appropriate corresponding assurancelevel electronic appliances 61.

Assurance level in this example may be assigned to a particularprotected processing environment 108 at initialization (e.g., at thefactory in the case of hardware-based secure processing units).Assigning assurance level at initialization time facilitates the use ofkey management (e.g., secure key exchange protocols) to enforceisolation based on assurance level. For example, since establishment ofassurance level is done at initialization time, rather than in the fieldin this example, the key exchange mechanism can be used to provide newkeys (assuming an assurance level has been established correctly).

Within a protected processing environment 108, as shown in FIGS.10A-10C, different assurance levels may be assigned to each separateinstance of a channel (see Ginter et al., FIG. 15) contained therein. Inthis way, each secure processing environment and host event processingenvironment (see Ginter et al., FIG. 10 and associated description)contained within an instance of a PPE 108 may contain multiple instancesof a channel, each with independent and different assurance levels. Thenature of this feature of the invention permits the separation ofdifferent channels within a PPE 108 from each other, each channelpossibly having identical, shared, or independent sets of load modulesfor each specific channel limited solely to the resources and servicesauthorized for use by that specific channel. In this way, the securityof the entire PPE is enhanced and the effect of security breaches withineach channel is compartmentalized solely to that channel.

As shown in FIG. 11A-11C, different digital signatures and/or signaturealgorithms corresponding to different “assurance levels” may be used toallow a particular execution environment to protect itself fromparticular load modules 54 that are accessible to other classes or“assurance levels” of electronic appliances. As shown in FIGS. 11A-11C:

A protected processing environment(s) of assurance level I protectsitself (themselves) by executing only load modules 54 sealed with anassurance level I digital signature 106(1). Protected processingenvironment(s) 108 having an associated assurance level I is (are)securely issued a public key 124(1) that can “unlock” the level Idigital signature.

-   -   Similarly, a protected processing environment(s) of assurance        level II protects itself (themselves) by executing only the same        (or different) load module 54 sealed with a “Level II” digital        signature 106(11). Such a protected processing environment 108        having an associated corresponding assurance level II possess a        public key 124(11) used to “unlock” the level II digital        signature.    -   A protected processing environment(s) 108 of assurance level III        protects itself (themselves) by executing only load modules 54        having a digital signature 106(111) for assurance level III.        Such an assurance level III protected processing environment 108        possesses a corresponding assurance level 3 public key 124(111).        Key management encryption (not signature) keys can allow this        protection to work securely.

In this example, electronic appliances 61 of different assurance levelscan communicate with one another and pass load modules 54 between oneanother—an important feature providing a scaleable virtual distributionenvironment involving all sorts of different appliances (e.g., personalcomputers, laptop computers, handheld computers, television sets, mediaplayers, set top boxes, internet browser appliances, smart cards,mainframe computers, etc.) The present invention uses verifyingauthority 100 and the digital signatures it provides to compartmentalizethe different electronic appliances depending on their level of security(e.g., work factor or relative tamper resistance). In particular,verifying authority 100 and the digital signatures it provides isolateappliances with significantly different work factors—preventing thesecurity of high work factor appliances from collapsing into thesecurity of low work factor appliances due to free exchange of loadmodules 54.

In one example, verifying authority 100 may digitally sign identicalcopies of load module 54 for use by different classes or “assurancelevels” of electronic appliances 61. If the sharing of a load module 54between different electronic appliances is regarded as an opencommunications channel between the protected processing environments 108of the two appliances, it becomes apparent that there is a high degreeof risk in permitting such sharing to occur. In particular, the extrasecurity assurances and precautions of the more trusted environment arecollapsed into the those of the less trusted environment because anattacker who compromises a load module within a less trusted environmentis then be able to launch the same load module to attack the moretrusted environment. Hence, although compartmentalization based onencryption and key management can be used to restrict certain kinds ofload modules 54 to execute only on certain types of electronicappliances 61, a significant application in this context is tocompartmentalize the different types of electronic appliances andthereby allow an electronic appliance to protect itself against loadmodules 54 of different assurance levels.

FIG. 12 emphasizes this isolation using the illustrative metaphor ofdesert islands. It shows how the assurance levels can be used to isolateand compartmentalize any number of different types of electronicappliances 61. In this example:

-   -   Personal computer 60(1) providing a software-only protected        processing environment 108 may be at assurance level I;    -   Media player 400(1) providing a software-only based protected        processing environment may be at assurance level II;    -   Server 402(1) providing a software-only based protected        processing environment may be at assurance level III;    -   Support service 404(1) providing a software-only based protected        processing environment may be at assurance level IV;    -   Personal computer 60(2) providing a hybrid software and hardware        protected processing environment 108 may be at assurance level        V;    -   Media player 400(2) providing a hybrid software and hardware        protected processing environment may be at assurance level VI;    -   Server 402(2) providing a software and hardware hybrid protected        processing environment may be at assurance level VII;    -   Support service 404(2) providing a software and hardware hybrid        protected processing environment may be at assurance level VIII;        and    -   Personal computer 60(3) providing a hardware-only protected        processing environment 108 may be at assurance level IX;    -   Media player 400(3) providing a hardware-only protected        processing environment may be at assurance level X;    -   Server 402(3) providing a hardware-only based protected        processing environment may be at assurance level XI;    -   Support service 404(3) providing a hardware-only based protected        processing environment may be at assurance level XII.

In accordance with this feature of the invention, verifying authority100 supports all of these various categories of digital signatures, andsystem 50 uses key management to distribute the appropriate verificationkeys to different assurance level devices. For example, verifyingauthority 100 may digitally sign a particular load module 54 such thatonly hardware-only based server(s) 402(3) at assurance level XI mayauthenticate it. This compartmentalization prevents any load moduleexecutable on hardware-only servers 402(3) from executing on any otherassurance level appliance (for example, software-only protectedprocessing environment based support service 404(1)).

To simplify key management and distribution, execution environmentshaving significantly similar work factors can be classified in the sameassurance level. FIG. 13 shows one example hierarchical assurance levelarrangement. In this example, less secure “software only” protectedprocessing environment 108 devices are categorized as assurance level I,somewhat more secure “software and hardware hybrid” protected processingenvironment appliances are categorized as assurance level II, and moretrusted “hardware only” protected processing environment devices arecategorized as assurance level III.

To show this type of isolation, FIG. 13A shows three examplecorresponding “desert islands.” Desert island I is “inhabited” bypersonal computers 61A providing a software-only protected processingenvironment. The software-only protected processing environment basedpersonal computers 60(1) “inhabit” desert island I are all of the sameassurance level—and thus will each authenticate (and may thus each use)an assurance level I load module 54 a. Desert island II is “inhabited”by assurance level II hybrid software and hardware protected processingenvironment personal computers 61B. These assurance level II personalcomputers will each authenticate (and may thus each execute) anassurance level II load module 54 b. Similarly, a desert island III is“inhabited” by assurance level III personal computers 61C providinghardware-only protected processing environments. These assurance levelIII devices 61C may each authenticate and execute an assurance level IIIload module 54 c.

The “desert islands” are created by the use of different digitalsignatures on each of load modules 54 a, 54 b, 54 c. In this example,all of the appliances 61 may freely communicate with one another (asindicated by the barges—which represent electronic or othercommunications between the various devices. However, because particularassurance level load modules 54 will be authenticated only by appliances60 having corresponding assurance levels, the load modules cannot leavetheir associated “desert island”—providing isolation between thedifferent assurance level execution environments. More specifically, aparticular assurance level appliance 61 thus protects itself from usinga load module 54 of a different assurance level. Digital signatures(and/or signature algorithms) 106 in this sense create the isolated“desert islands” shown—since they allow execution environments toprotect themselves from “off island” load modules 54 of differentassurance levels.

A load module or other executable may be certified for multipleassurance levels. Different digital signatures may be used to certifythe same load module or other executable for different respectiveassurance levels. The load module or other executable could also beencrypted differently (e.g. using different keys to encrypt the loadmodule) based on assurance level. If a load module is encrypteddifferently for different assurance levels, and the keys and/oralgorithms that are used to decrypt such load modules are onlydistributed to environments of the same assurance level, an additionalmeasure of security is provided. The risk associated with disclosing theload module or other executable contents (e.g., by decrypting encryptedcode before execution) in a lower assurance environment does notcompromise the security of higher assurance level systems directly, butit may help the attacker learn how the load module or other executableworks and how to encrypt them—which can be important in making bogusload modules or other executables (although not in certifying them—sincecertification requires keys that would only become available to anattacker who has compromised the keys of a corresponding appropriateassurance level environment). Commercially, it may be important foradministrative ease and consistency to take this risk. In other cases,it will not be (e.g. provider sensitivities, government uses, customfunctions, etc.)

FIG. 14 shows an example sequence of steps that may be performed in anoverall process provided by these inventions. To begin the overallprocess, a load module provider 52 may manufacture a load module andassociated specifications (FIG. 14, block 502). Provider 52 may thensubmit the load module and associated specifications to verifyingauthority 100 for verification (FIG. 14, block 504). Verifying authority100 may analyze, test, and/or otherwise validate the load module againstthe specifications (FIG. 14, block 506), and determine whether the loadmodule satisfies the specifications.

If the load module is found to satisfy its specifications, a verifyingauthority 100 determines whether it is authorized to generate one ormore new specifications for the load module (FIG. 14, block 509). If itis authorized and this function has been requested (“Y” exit to decisionblock 509), a verifying authority generates specifications andassociates them with the load module (FIG. 14, block 514).

If the load module fails the test (“N” exit to decision block 508),verifying authority 100 determines whether it is authorized and able tocreate new specifications corresponding to the actual load moduleperformance, and whether it is desirable to create the conformingspecifications (FIG. 14, decision block 510). If verifying authority 100decides not to make new specifications (“N” exit to decision block 510),verifying authority returns the load module to provider 52 (block 512)and the process ends. On the other hand, if verifying authority 100determines that it is desirable to make new specifications and it isable and authorized to do so, a verifying authority 100 may make newspecifications that conform to the load module (“Y” exit to decisionblock 510; block 514).

A verifying authority 100 may then digitally sign the load module 54 toindicate approval (FIG. 14, block 516). This step 516 may involveapplying multiple digital signatures and/or a selection of theappropriate digital signatures to use in order to restrict the loadmodule to particular “assurance levels” of electronic appliances asdiscussed above. Verifying authority may then determine the distributionof the load module (FIG. 14, block 518). This “determine distribution”step may involve, for example, determining who the load module should bedistributed to (e.g., provider 52, support services 404, a load modulerepository operated by a verifying authority, etc.) and/or what shouldbe distributed (e.g., the load module plus corresponding digitalsignatures, digital signatures only, digital signatures and associateddescription, etc.). Verifying authority 100 may then distribute theappropriate information to a value chain using the appropriatedistribution techniques (FIG. 14, block 520).

1. A system comprising: means for digitally signing a load module usinga first key to yield a first digital signature; means for digitallysigning the load module using a second key to yield a second digitalsignature; means for distributing at least the first digital signatureto a first remote electronic appliance comprising a first protectedprocessing environment operable to authenticate the first digitalsignature before the first remote electronic appliance executes the loadmodule; and means for distributing at least the second digital signatureto a second remote electronic appliance comprising a second protectedprocessing environment operable to authenticate the second digitalsignature before the second remote electronic appliance executes theload module.
 2. The system of claim 1, further comprising: means fortesting the load module.
 3. The system of claim 2, in which the meansfor testing comprises means for testing the load module to determine ifit does what it is supposed to do.
 4. The system of claim 2, in whichthe means for testing comprises means for determining whether the loadmodule is operable to compromise or harm a system upon which it isexecuted.
 5. The system of claim 2, in which the means for testingcomprises means for determining whether the load module performs asspecified by a specification.
 6. The system of claim 2, in which themeans for testing comprises means for determining whether the loadmodule is a virus.
 7. The system of claim 1, in which the firstprotected processing environment has an assurance level that isdifferent from an assurance level of the second protected processingenvironment.
 8. The system of claim 1, further comprising: means forsecurely distributing a third key to the first protected processingenvironment, the third key being configured for use in authenticatingthe first digital signature; and means for securely distributing afourth key to the second protected processing environment, the fourthkey being configured for use in authenticating the second digitalsignature.
 9. The system of claim 1, further comprising: means forencrypting the load module.